Becton Dickinson and Co. v. Reese

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that due diligence was required of plaintiff alleging conversion of his invention when he knew a patent had issued on the invention
• refusing to apply discovery rule where plaintiff is aware of basis for claim before statutory period expired
• rejecting “exceptional circumstances” rationale when plaintiff could have discovered factual basis of claim with “due diligence”
• applying Utah Code Ann. 1953 § 78B-2-305’s three-year statute of limitations to bar claim for conversion of a patented idea
• statute tolled until facts forming basis for cause of action discovered, concealed facts become known, or as justice requires
• “Since defendant’s action is barred by the statute of limitations, we have no need to reach the merits of the question....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).